John Heagy
Forum Replies Created
-
Hi Keith,
[Keith Koby] “I recall that some reel metadata was stored in the QT”
Ah… now your talking my language. Yes there is “reel” metadata that comes along with the timecode track. In the QT API it’s call TCSource. This is the old FCP7 reel metadata that inexplicably is not read by FCPX. Hoping that will change in the next version. It’s like reading history… never an excuse not to do that.
Luckily FCPX embraces QT’s extended metadata model. The reel in FCPX is read from QT when it finds a com.Apple.ProApps.Reel key. Arri uses this model a well as the old TCSource. It supports custom keys which you can punch into QT with Digital Rebellions’s QTEdit. FCPX will read any custom key if entered as a custom metadata field using the same com.xxx syntax.
CatDV excels at reading any an all com.xxx entries out of the box.
Interesting you are looking at Just:in we use B4M’s Fork extensively but it does not include any embedded metadata. I’ve been meaning to try Just:in for this reason.
John
-
[Craig Seeman] “Because FCP7 is EOL and FCPX is new code. Yes as I said, at some point developers, hardware or software, cut off backward compatibility. All do it at different points for different reasons but it is inevitable.”
I would argue that tape is far from EOL and Apple, as is typical, forced the issue. I swear Apple engineers must get bonuses based on cutting “legacy” tech from apps.
We’ll find a way around it, but again, to say not much is lost as far as tape goes is not true from our stand point.
John
-
[Craig Seeman] “Of course one can create illogical workflows and say “there, look, it doesn’t work””
If a workflow that works without issue in FCP7 but becomes laborious with FCPX means it’s illogical… Ok.
[Craig Seeman] “You don’t have to change a facility to have an individual Avid work station for an individual job.”
Almost all our jobs require at least a few shots be brought in from tape. I see linking all the captured shots as a bigger issue than capturing.
[Craig Seeman] “Sorry but coming up with, what I consider, a convoluted situation and blaming modern software…”
FCP7 allowed creative solutions, sorry I mean “convoluted”, that are wide spread and diverse in the large facility space. FCP7 dominates in this space because of this ability. Apple clearly geared FCPX to a smaller “one man band” or even “quartet” with really no regard to large facilities workflows. They really slammed the door on enabling custom solutions in favor of Apple “one size fits all” in a clear nod to Avid. Creating innovative workflows with FCP7 is like playing on a wide open field. Avid is like a straight jacket. FCPX is looking like a padded room.
We are certainly a big ship that turns slowly. Believe me I have the rudder full to port but it just doesn’t turn fast enough.
You wrote FCPX doesn’t lose much when it comes to tape… I respectfully disagree no matter what you think of our methods.
Seems I get dissed every time I describe how we’re struggling with FCPX. Is this forum not interested in a large facility’s persecutive?
John
-
[Craig Seeman] “So you offlined in Avid and you’re confirming in FCPX?”
The key word in my previous post is “scenario”.
[Craig Seeman] “In any project one should have forethought about the entire workflow.
One could certainly digitize in ProRez (or DNxHD) and have file based source.”The whole benefit of offline/offline is to have access to far more media when working offline. The online conform is meant to only bring in what’s necessary. What your suggesting really guts any offline/online efficiencies.
[Craig Seeman] “I must say I’m impressed that you thought FCPX would be more worthwhile to conform in than Avid. I guess that says something.”
It’s says don’t want to replace our 1.2PB of Xsan with Issis!
John
-
[Craig Seeman] “Assuming you brought them in ProRes, there’s no reason to go back to tape.”
The media required to fulfill the online timeline only exists on tape. It was never a file. This scenario is not a FCPX-FCPX offline/online but an Avid-FCPX.
John
-
[Craig Seeman] “I don’t think FCPX losses that much with regards to tape.”
I does if your doing an offline/online workflow and you have 100s of offline clips in the timeline that are from tape.
In FCP7 you could essentially capture directly to the timeline. Doing this in FCPX would mean somehow getting an in/out/reel list (EDL) of what’s required and then capturing in a separate app. All these captured files would then need to be manually linked to the offline clips in the timeline.
Doing this in FCP7… easy… FCPX.. laborious!
John
-
The writes can only be as fast as the source of your data.
What’s the source?
-
It’s hard to fix a problem when the solution is a secret.
-
[Elliot Pollaro] “This is why we need a video tutorial explaining proper XSAN server workflow”
I depends on what you need to share and if needs to be concurrent.
As far as projects go, I really don’t think anybody needs concurrent access to the same project. Even Avid doesn’t do that. In the end project sharing is really handled by copying projects or closing a project so it can be opened by someone else. Apple handles both of these via San locations.
What I think most people really mean when they say “project sharing” is accessing the same media. Apple does and doesn’t do this. It does as long as it’s not concurrent. If you want concurrent media access then it’s a copy. I think most people want concurrent access to media and imho coping is not sharing.
Now with media only linked, the actual media files are not copied but the event is. What Apple really needs is concurrent Event sharing. The value of events is the metadata added. If two editors have copies of an event then the metadata diverges… again not sharing, more like isolating.
There’s only one way to solve this… Events need to go to a shared database server and not locked away on individual systems.
That would at the very least require a server, a host of preference settings, and user accounts. Things I think Apple does over it’s dead body.
John
-
[Elliot Pollaro] “They kind of jump around it.”
My thoughts exactly! It’s more about how to work around FCPX paradigms:
Events shared out via AFP with sparse images
Avoiding the magnetic timeline by placing down a single slug.
Avoiding project lists by editing in Compound clips only.
More how to work around than work with.
John